Well, two of those nurses in Indiana had religiously-motivated objections, and you object on the grounds of personal freedom. So there's two reasons. Others are all too easy to find; parents seeking a reason for their child's autism, or even sheer ego / greed, like the human cockroach Andrew Wakefield:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

The "Vaccine Court" in the US exists because such objections were posing a serious threat to national health. Lawyers like to dot "i"s and cross "t"s; that is their job on behalf of their clients. Here's an overview of the founding of the agency involved and the circumstances:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

If there were not long term risks,why would anybody be against it,hell there is even an American agency compensating victims of vaccination side effects

Sometimes the government has to take action in response to people's irrationality. Not long ago, for example, NOAA (the agency that I happen to work for) issued a public statement stating that there was no evidence for the existence of mermaids.http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/mermaids.htmlThis is not because anyone at NOAA believes that mermaids actually exist, or even that the matter has been under investigation. Rather, it was because a television show a month or so earlier had claimed that mermaids do exist, and since most people don't have an adequate education in how to think skeptically, a lot of people fell for it.

The case is not dissimilar with the "vaccine court". There are a lot of people out there who believe that Jenny McCarthy is qualified to speak about the dangers of vaccination, and they listen to her rubbish.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

If there were not long term risks,why would anybody be against it,hell there is even an American agency compensating victims of vaccination side effects

Sometimes the government has to take action in response to people's irrationality. Not long ago, for example, NOAA (the agency that I happen to work for) issued a public statement stating that there was no evidence for the existence of mermaids.http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/mermaids.htmlThis is not because anyone at NOAA believes that mermaids actually exist, or even that the matter has been under investigation. Rather, it was because a television show a month or so earlier had claimed that mermaids do exist, and since most people don't have an adequate education in how to think skeptically, a lot of people fell for it.

The case is not dissimilar with the "vaccine court". There are a lot of people out there who believe that Jenny McCarthy is qualified to speak about the dangers of vaccination, and they listen to her rubbish.

Alzheimer's and other dementia related diseases are on a rapid escalation in people who are still young,can this be explained?.....and there is nowhere (and nobody) in the medical profession willing to say anything because it may make them liable. The society's for these diseases even dismiss heavy metal poisoning as cause.

Of course unhealthy diet and other factors are at play but 50 years ago these diseases were rare and 50 years from now people in their 40's may be in danger but we won't be here to know will we

And as for people who may think mermaids exist,these are the same people who attribute all things to God?

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Hep A,B,C are easily transmittable and vaccines are available for A and B,there are other transmittable and diseases that kill,where a vaccine is available,Whooping cough as an example,very DEADLY. Should these be mandatory as well? Where does the slippery slope of Big Brother stop? These vaccines are available but not mandatory,so why the flu shot?

Good question.

When I got accepted into medical school, I had to prove I was immune via blood test to everything given in childhood vaccinations, and was up-to-date on my tetanus booster (which also contains diphtheria and whooping cough.) Incidentally, my childhood Heb B had not taken (a small percentage of people are non-responders,) so I was required to get another booster and get tested for immunity again.

When I was hired by my hospital, I had to prove the same thing as a prerequisite for employment. "Before we hire you, we'll have to get a urine sample for a drug test and, oh, stop by the lab so we can check your immunity." So yeah, I'd say those are mandatory, or at least they were for me.

Flu shot isn't mandatory here yet, but we do have to sign a waiver if we don't get it. Of course, it's so easy to get one for free that there's really no reason not to get it if you're not allergic to the ingredients.

The site you pasted lists no known long-term risks for any of the vaccines, other than the catchall "and anything resulting from the above." So, if you had an allergic reaction to a vaccine, were unable to breathe, and suffered brain damage before the doctors could open your airway, that would be covered under that clause. Though, that would not be the vaccine causing brain damage; it would be the vaccine causing an allergic reaction that led to brain damage.

Alzheimer's and other dementia related diseases are on a rapid escalation in people who are still young,can this be explained?.....and there is nowhere (and nobody) in the medical profession willing to say anything because it may make them liable.

You can't just pick two things at random you think are trending and logically conclude one influences the other. When you do that, you get this:

Not to mention that Alzheimer Disease is not rapidly escalating in the young. We're getting better at diagnosing it early, but the disease is still one of the elderly. About 5-10% of cases is in people under 65, and over half of that 5-10% is due to one genetic disease. Where is there any evidence at all, anywhere, that vaccines cause any type of dementia?

If you want to refuse a vaccine, that's your right once you've heard the risks/benefits. But there's no need to hide behind paranoid thoughts about long-term effects not known to researchers, dubious correlations, or a conspiracy of medical professionals hiding the truth to protect their wallets. That's just not rational.

If I get the flu, I will go to the MD (if needed), and call out sick. I will rest, drink Gatorade and other fluids, rest, eat what I can, rest and take medication for fever or other symptoms.

The efficacy of the flu shots is not always predictable, nor completely effective.

People come to work every day with all kinds of sickness, what is the difference between and intestinal virus and the flu? I don't really want either but will use my sick time if I get either. I recently had to call out because of an intestinal issue all thanks to someone who came to work sick and sickened 2 other employees.

Thanks for a nurse's direct perspective, stuffin. I'm curious, though. Even if the annual flu vaccine specifically isn't always effective, why forgo it? What about it do you see as not worth the trouble?

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

If I get the flu, I will go to the MD (if needed), and call out sick. I will rest, drink Gatorade and other fluids, rest, eat what I can, rest and take medication for fever or other symptoms.

That may work for you, but what about your patients? The flu becomes contagious about 1 day before you develop symptoms, which means you get to go an entire shift spreading the love around before you call out sick.

The people at most risk from the flu are also those who need more frequent healthcare: elderly, pregnant women, weakened immune systems, etc. It's great that you'll be ok if you get sick, but what if you give it to someone for whom the flu is more serious than feeling miserable for a few days? What if someone dies?

They could easily mask any patients at risk of the flu because of serious illness.........why don't they?

Because basically, masks are completely useless. Even the finestly woven ones present holes that to a virus are the equivalent of aircraft hanger doorway to a golf-ball. The really efficient hepamasks filter 99.97 per cent of all particles that are 0.3 of a millionth of a meter in diameter; but viruses go down to 80 billionths of a metre.

On top of that, if the patient is wearing a oxygen mask or has breathing difficulties or has restricted movement, a mask is impractical. Added to that, patients tend to be stationary and their infective range is very small compared with a nurse who walks around many wards and meets many other staff and visitors all of whom also walk around.

If the above is not enough, 'flu is passed on mainly by contact, not so much by airborne viruses.

Finally, the job of medical staff is not only to cure illness but to prevent illness, that's why they wash their hands a lot. If you have the flu shot, you are preventing illness.

The only objection to this compulsory injection would be if those who had had the injection could, nevertheless produce viruses yet be unaware that they were ill. However, I suspect that the number of viruses that they might produce would be immensely reduced - small amounts of a virus are not as dangerous as large amounts.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

GB and the flu shot is only 90% effective if it is a similar strain,,,useless if its not so what about the 10% of employees who carry the flu virus because the vaccine fails?

You are hardly reducing the risk if one in ten nurses on a ward gets the flu......or they ALL get the flu if the vaccine fails to be of the same strain. That is why influenza has not been eradicated,it evolves and has MANY different strains. If it were sure fire to wipe out the flu,but its NOT.

I understand your want to protect patients......but if that were the case,why not make the flu shot mandatory for all citizens?

Gb also the Government of BC Canada wanted to make it compulsory for nurses to take the injection OR wear a surgical mask if they refused the injection. The nurses Union stepped in and refused either

but if that were the case,why not make the flu shot mandatory for all citizens?

Moody already addressed that. Because the risk to all citizens is not as great. Many patients who are potentially exposed to it in the hospital have already weakened immune systems or have other issues.

12M, I do not mean this to be derogatory, so I hope it does not sound that way. Do you think doctors and immunologists have an understanding of the virus, how it spreads and the risks that is inferior to yours? If so, why?

Mooby,once you have assessed the risk,YOU have the right NOT to take the vaccine. These people do not,they take it or get fired. Hardly OK in a "free" country

I am not speaking out against vaccines here,but about an individuals right to decide for themselves.

What about the sick people? Do they not have a right to not get infected with the flu by hospital staff? Whose rights matter matter more? Who has more at risk, in the balance? In order to have the stability and protections of a social group, we individuals must surrender some of our rights. Thems the breaks.

So where does the rights of an individual end,for the "greater good"? This could be a wedge issue,no?.... the "greater good" says only police and military have guns so people are not put at risk from lunatics with guns......citizens have the "right" to refuse things that are for the greater good. There are lots of things that should be BANNED for the "greater good",booze and cigarettes for example.As I do not partake of either,I do not care.

Medicine is an evolving thing what did not work or was not feasible even 50 years ago is now practiced,and common practice then is now barbaric now by today's standards. An individuals right NOT to be fired should be considered. What about a mandatory flu shot for all citizens? Would that be an infringement for the "greater good"?

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

This is always the question of society and it is always up for debate. It is decided by a culture and the times. It is why we have the supreme court. Right now Americans think it is worth throwing away half the Bill of Rights (ie, individual freedoms) for perceived safety from "terrorists" (the Greater Good). I would personally prefer to have my individual right to not have my phone tapped and my emails read. But that's just me.

First of all, I do not think any such right exists. It is called "[wiki]at-will employment[/wiki]". It means you can be fired at any moment for any reason or no reason at all.

I think immunization is not so much a rights thing as it is part of the job. Like those doctors who want to have the right to not treat patients if they feel it conflicts with some part of their religion or morality. If that is the case, they should not have become doctors in the first place. Part of being a healthcare worker means being immunized. If you don't want that, you should chose a different line of work.

What about a mandatory flu shot for all citizens? Would that be an infringement for the "greater good"?

Sure. For certain some people's lives would be prolonged, millions in healthcare treatment would be saved, etc. But we as a society have decided the risk and cost of the flu does not outweigh the cost of individual rights. We don't even say kids have to be immunized against MMR. We just say if they want to attend public schools, they need to be immunized.

The Nurses Union here in BC Canada(and its collective who elected them) where I live is refusing to be immunized,and NOT for religious reasons

As far as citizens rejecting things for the greater good....the civil rights movement comes to mind,thanks Rosa Parks....it was also meant to show how a small number of the population can push the Government around(NRA,tobacco,alcohol lobbies) can effect Government policies that go against the greater good of the citizens.

Again its a personal rights issue,not a vaccination issue.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Thanks for a nurse's direct perspective, stuffin. I'm curious, though. Even if the annual flu vaccine specifically isn't always effective, why forgo it? What about it do you see as not worth the trouble?

I got sick back about 1992 after I got a flu shot, had all the symptoms (fever, chills, cough) my doctor shrugged it off. I wasn't impressed and stopped getting the shot.

If I get the flu, I will go to the MD (if needed), and call out sick. I will rest, drink Gatorade and other fluids, rest, eat what I can, rest and take medication for fever or other symptoms.

That may work for you, but what about your patients? The flu becomes contagious about 1 day before you develop symptoms, which means you get to go an entire shift spreading the love around before you call out sick.

The people at most risk from the flu are also those who need more frequent healthcare: elderly, pregnant women, weakened immune systems, etc. It's great that you'll be ok if you get sick, but what if you give it to someone for whom the flu is more serious than feeling miserable for a few days? What if someone dies?

That works both ways, I had to Quell(sp) once because we had a patient with scabies (I was assigned to the patient for 2 days). They notified those of us who took care of the patient 2 days after discharge. Furthermore, it has been entered into my employee health record at least 5X that I have been exposed to tuberculosis patients, always days after exposure.

Anyway, Gereral Precuations will prevent transmission pretty well. You need to very cognizant though, sneeze into tissue and discard, disinfect hands or wash thoroughly afterwards, cough into elbow, again clean your hands; you can never clean your hand enough. A patient was very impressed with me one day and was nervous about the oncoming nurse; she asked me how she could tell if she was a good nurse. I told if she washes her hands at least twice while in the room that is a sign of a good nurse.

Mooby,once you have assessed the risk,YOU have the right NOT to take the vaccine. These people do not,they take it or get fired. Hardly OK in a "free" country

I am not speaking out against vaccines here,but about an individuals right to decide for themselves.

Yes, you have the right not to take the vaccine. You also have the right to free speech, and freedom of the press. If you choose to exercise these rights within the confines of the law, the government can't punish you for it. If, however, you decide to curse your boss out and circulate a flyer about why the company sucks, the company can and will fire you. This is because a private corporation is not the government. Your rights are irrelevant to a private company unless the government enacts specific regulations that require a company to abide by them (such as anti-discrimination laws.)

Hospitals have the right to enforce measures to maintain the hospital at an appropriate level of sanitation for treating patients. If they feel that people walking around for entire shifts shedding a potentially lethal virus (yes, the flu is a potentially lethal virus), they should have the right to take measures to reduce that risk, and require staff to comply. Yes, firing may seem a bit extreme, but that's where the new standards are headed. My own hospital isn't 100% there yet: it's technically compulsory, but we can sign a waiver without penalty so in practice it's not compulsory. But I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years they required a documented medical reason to waive.

The same thing's happening with smoking. It used to be no smoking in the hospital, then no smoking anywhere on the hospital premises (even inside your car in the parking lot.) Now many hospitals are straight up asking if you smoke during your interview, and some are even checking nicotine levels on potential employees. If you smoke, you're out. Is that legal? Yeah, as long as the government doesn't pass a law preventing discrimination against smokers.

My point is that every company has its own policies. Unless the government says those policies are illegal, they can force you to follow them under threat of termination. If you don't like it, it's your right to refuse employment there.

GB and the flu shot is only 90% effective if it is a similar strain,,,useless if its not so what about the 10% of employees who carry the flu virus because the vaccine fails?

Flu virus is seasonal, like weather patterns. A 90% chance of rain tomorrow does not mean that 1 out of every 10 houses in your neighborhood will have a dry roof at the end of the day. It means that there's a 90% chance that the front carrying rain will move through your area. Likewise, 90% effectiveness on the flu means there is a 90% chance that the vaccine will cover the strains in your area during the flu season. To compare, seat belts reduce your risk of injury or death in a car accident by about 50%.

Your earlier post made me think of a patient we had in the ER once. She was drunk, high, belligerent, demanding... I'm sure you know the type. Anyways, a nurse was trying to draw blood from her, she jerked her arm and the needle came out, and he was like, "Whoa!" Another nurse immediately asked, "Did you get stuck?" And the patient replied, "HIM? You're asking if HE got stuck? WHAT ABOUT ME?"

See, your first response to the hospital story was to point out how you'd be ok if you got sick. But really, why would the hospital make a policy like that for you? Unless they're expecting huge financial losses if you are out of work, it's probably much less about whether you'll get sick and more about whether you'll make everyone else sick.

Quote

Anyway, Gereral Precuations will prevent transmission pretty well.

Standard Precautions are great, but they're not everything. The flu can be transmitted directly, airborne, and contact, and it can take as little as one droplet to become infected. So even if you're following Standard Precautions 100% of the time, you still have to prevent 100% of the virus spread, and that's just not possible. The best precaution is to not be shedding the virus in the first place, which Standard Precautions will not do.

Just look at how fast a viral gastroenteritis can spread. I've seen them fly around hospitals, even when staff is taking proper precautions. I managed to catch it from an infant, even though I washed my hands right after examining him. If there's an outbreak of a flu at a hospital, it's probably already too late to do anything.

Quote

Work should be organised in such a way that as few staff as possible are in contact with highly infectious patients.

That's great for something like TB. But in a flu outbreak, you can catch it at the mall and bring it into work.

The Nurses Union here in BC Canada(and its collective who elected them) where I live is refusing to be immunized,and NOT for religious reasons

Well, I am of the opinion she should find a different line of work if she feels that way. And the reason I feel that way is because I feel the cost of her freedom on the matter is too high for the rest of us to pay.

Who is trying to guilt you ....its just there are bigger things to worry about than your nurse being vaccinated against the flu......but like I pointed out and you upheld ....you only care if it effects you....if you or a loved one are put at risk

These people are refusing the shot for the reason of long term unknown health effects

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

but like I pointed out and you upheld ....you only care if it effects you....if you or a loved one are put at risk

I think that is fairly obvious to pretty much everyone. We care about our monkeysphere and everyone outside it just looks like another monkey. I do not see how that has anything to do with our discussion of vaccination and rights. Given that, this makes you stating the obvious sound like...1) an attempt to cast me (or whomever your statement was directed at) as some kind of callous hypocrite2) a red herring, 3) a weird non sequitur4) you are making some point I am completely not getting

I'm not offended. I am just pointing out how this sounds to me. I do not see how this makes or enhances any point you have made in this discussion so far. Why did you bring it up?

And by the way, the chinese are holding the Ouigours as political prisoners and executing them so the political elite can use their organs. But nobody here cares.[1]

Well, if I worked at a hospital I would get any shot I was required to get except those made by certain drugs I am deathly allergic to, which sadly is most of them. Including flu shots. Of course, in having such information: I wouldn't work at a hospital if the policy was to get a shot to prevent illness of the ill.

Those who refused based on being Christian: I have never heard that before unless Jehovah Witness.

These people are refusing the shot for the reason of long term unknown health effects

Which effects would those be?

I'm watching your video. Despite a promise that they were going to prove the flu vaccine was unsafe, 10 min in it's just people complaining about vaccine policies and "questioning" whether the vaccine is safe. I don't know how much longer I can sit through.

The guy states he's a scientist, but then identifies himself as a nutritionist... so he doesn't work in the field. And... Oh God, I just hit 12 min and he's talking about autism. 16 min he mentions it again. And now he's implying ADHD is due to vaccines. This is a mess.

Seriously? The whole autism scare was because of 1 guy who lied and faked evidence in his paper. He was promptly exposed, laughed out of the scientific community, and had his medical license revoked, and all follow-up studied found no link between vaccines and autism. He loses 10 credibility points for stating a completely disproven claim with a straight face.

Now he's ranting about money... yeah, I'm going to stop here. Is there anything in the video that shows vaccines are unsafe?

These people are refusing the shot for the reason of long term unknown health effects

Which effects would those be?

I'm watching your video. Despite a promise that they were going to prove the flu vaccine was unsafe, 10 min in it's just people complaining about vaccine policies and "questioning" whether the vaccine is safe. I don't know how much longer I can sit through.

The guy states he's a scientist, but then identifies himself as a nutritionist... so he doesn't work in the field. And... Oh God, I just hit 12 min and he's talking about autism. 16 min he mentions it again. And now he's implying ADHD is due to vaccines. This is a mess.

Seriously? The whole autism scare was because of 1 guy who lied and faked evidence in his paper. He was promptly exposed, laughed out of the scientific community, and had his medical license revoked, and all follow-up studied found no link between vaccines and autism. He loses 10 credibility points for stating a completely disproven claim with a straight face.

Now he's ranting about money... yeah, I'm going to stop here. Is there anything in the video that shows vaccines are unsafe?

He is asking for studies NOT done by the vaccine companies.Remember when Aspartame was safe? I get you are on the Pro vaccine side.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)